Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict 2020

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
708
678
A Place
Armenia is supported by whole of Christian world.
No, it's really, really not. The West doesn't give a shit about Eastern Christians. They looked at the Syriac getting genocided by Daesh with indifference, cared more about the Yezidi than the Christians of Iraq and Syria. Heck, they care more about Uighur and Rohingya.

That will be like axing own leg. Remember Armenia doesn't have claim on the disputed land except that it supports majority people (Christian people) against an oppressive regime of Muslim majority Ajarbaijan state. If I am correct, then land belongs to Ajarbaijan however as native people are Christian majority while Ajarbaijan is Muslim majority country, hence native people support separation from Ajarbaijan on religious ground. It's complex for Indian foreign ministry, hence silence and indirectly supporting status quo.
More than religion (because as far as Muslims go, the Azeri are among the most secular you can find), it's an ethnic and cultural conflict. Armenians in the Karabakh were forbidden from speaking Armenian, from listening to Armenian radio and TV broadcast, from learning the history of their people, etc. That's why they rebelled.

The Azeri are secular as far as religion goes, but they are very nationalist as far as ethnicity goes. So they don't get along with Iran (their next-door neighbor, which is also a Shia Muslim country but more militant about it, what with being a revolutionary islamic republic, something the Azeri don't care about) because Iran's northern areas are majority Azeri, and Azerbaijan is claiming these lands. This resulted in the weird situation that Iran ended up supporting Armenia against Azerbaijan because Azerbaijan is hostile to Iran. As a result, Israel supports Azerbaijan because Azerbaijan is hostile to Iran.

It seems to be Azerbaijan attacking Armenia, so most will side with Armenia. Neighbouring Georgia is also nearly 90% Christian. Turkey isn't exactly on great terms with the US or the EU at the moment either, or NATO despite being a member. In fact their presence in NATO is rough analogous to the presence of a shoe-wearing sausage in a mosque right now.
And just like Israel supports Azerbaijan because Iran supports Armenia; Georgia supports Azerbaijan because Russia supports Armenia. Armenia depends on Russian protection against the Turks' unquenchable thirst for genocide; Georgia lost control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia because of Russia, so Georgia hates Russia but cannot fight back directly. They can however take revenge in making things harder for Russia's protégé Armenia, so they do it. For example, they closed their borders to prevent Armenians living in Russia from going to Armenia to help. Instead of going to Armenia by land through Georgia, they have to go by air or by the Caspian sea and Iran.

As for NATO, it knows it cannot extend to Armenia because Armenia relies too much on Russia and Iran to join an anti-Russia club led by an anti-Iran country, but it was very interested in adding Azerbaijan to its string of pearl. Get a new possible attack vector against Russia or Iran.
According to a NATO diplomatic source in August 2009 some key officials at NATO headquarters in Brussels were pushing hard for engaging Azerbaijan on the membership question. "Turkey, Romania, Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and the Baltic states" are among the members backing a fast track for Azerbaijan's NATO membership. While President Ilham Aliyev has generally supported non-belligerency (though not neutrality due to the unresolved conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh) since his rise to power in 2003, Azerbaijan has hosted NATO military exercises and high-profile meetings in 2009.[5] The unresolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh would present a major roadblock to membership.​
Of course countries can only join NATO when they don't have ongoing conflicts. This is to ensure that a country joining doesn't turn into an instant war. (This is also what incentivized Russia to keep so many frozen conflicts around. Moldavia/Transniestria, Georgia/Abkhazia+South Ossetia, Ukraine/Donbass+Crimea, and Azerbaijan/Nagorno-Karabakh. A simple way to make a country ineligible for NATO membership.)

So no, do not expect people to side with Armenia. The public opinion can see it as a case where a Muslim country attacks a Christian one and is very obviously preparing a genocide, but Western politicians see a NATO country's puppet preparing to attack a country aligned with Russia and Iran and reclaiming a territory that officially belongs to it since Stalin gave it to them, which would allow that puppet country to then join NATO itself.

Interesting video. Turks have drunk the kool aid of a neo-ottoman empire...
Erdogan's policy for TURKEY STRONK! is based on two competing ideas: the first is Islamism, seeing Turkey as the lead nation of Islam, reprising the role of the Ottoman Empire and thereby claiming all the former subjects of this empire to its sphere of influence, reaching as far as Morocco to the west, the Balkans to the north, the whole Arab peninsula to the south. The second is panturkism, extending Turkey's reach towards Central Asia by grabbing Turkic nations such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

The problems with that dream is that, 1. by and large, the former Ottoman subjects do not want to be Ottoman subjects again, they do not have nostalgia of being colonial subjects of the Turks, 2. the Central Asian countries, despite their shared ethnicity with Turkey, usually have more cultural and economic ties with closer neighbors such as Russia than with Turkey (after all, they were Soviet republics while Turkey was and still is in NATO, so they spent 70 years without any connection), and 3. Islamism has a strong component of Arab supremacism which is incompatible with Turkic supremacism, so it'll be hard to reconcile Islamism and Panturkism.
 

RISING SUN

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
6,555
3,800
No, it's really, really not. The West doesn't give a shit about Eastern Christians. They looked at the Syriac getting genocided by Daesh with indifference, cared more about the Yezidi than the Christians of Iraq and Syria. Heck, they care more about Uighur and Rohingya.


More than religion (because as far as Muslims go, the Azeri are among the most secular you can find), it's an ethnic and cultural conflict. Armenians in the Karabakh were forbidden from speaking Armenian, from listening to Armenian radio and TV broadcast, from learning the history of their people, etc. That's why they rebelled.

The Azeri are secular as far as religion goes, but they are very nationalist as far as ethnicity goes. So they don't get along with Iran (their next-door neighbor, which is also a Shia Muslim country but more militant about it, what with being a revolutionary islamic republic, something the Azeri don't care about) because Iran's northern areas are majority Azeri, and Azerbaijan is claiming these lands. This resulted in the weird situation that Iran ended up supporting Armenia against Azerbaijan because Azerbaijan is hostile to Iran. As a result, Israel supports Azerbaijan because Azerbaijan is hostile to Iran.


And just like Israel supports Azerbaijan because Iran supports Armenia; Georgia supports Azerbaijan because Russia supports Armenia. Armenia depends on Russian protection against the Turks' unquenchable thirst for genocide; Georgia lost control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia because of Russia, so Georgia hates Russia but cannot fight back directly. They can however take revenge in making things harder for Russia's protégé Armenia, so they do it. For example, they closed their borders to prevent Armenians living in Russia from going to Armenia to help. Instead of going to Armenia by land through Georgia, they have to go by air or by the Caspian sea and Iran.

As for NATO, it knows it cannot extend to Armenia because Armenia relies too much on Russia and Iran to join an anti-Russia club led by an anti-Iran country, but it was very interested in adding Azerbaijan to its string of pearl. Get a new possible attack vector against Russia or Iran.
According to a NATO diplomatic source in August 2009 some key officials at NATO headquarters in Brussels were pushing hard for engaging Azerbaijan on the membership question. "Turkey, Romania, Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and the Baltic states" are among the members backing a fast track for Azerbaijan's NATO membership. While President Ilham Aliyev has generally supported non-belligerency (though not neutrality due to the unresolved conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh) since his rise to power in 2003, Azerbaijan has hosted NATO military exercises and high-profile meetings in 2009.[5] The unresolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh would present a major roadblock to membership.​
Of course countries can only join NATO when they don't have ongoing conflicts. This is to ensure that a country joining doesn't turn into an instant war. (This is also what incentivized Russia to keep so many frozen conflicts around. Moldavia/Transniestria, Georgia/Abkhazia+South Ossetia, Ukraine/Donbass+Crimea, and Azerbaijan/Nagorno-Karabakh. A simple way to make a country ineligible for NATO membership.)

So no, do not expect people to side with Armenia. The public opinion can see it as a case where a Muslim country attacks a Christian one and is very obviously preparing a genocide, but Western politicians see a NATO country's puppet preparing to attack a country aligned with Russia and Iran and reclaiming a territory that officially belongs to it since Stalin gave it to them, which would allow that puppet country to then join NATO itself.


Erdogan's policy for TURKEY STRONK! is based on two competing ideas: the first is Islamism, seeing Turkey as the lead nation of Islam, reprising the role of the Ottoman Empire and thereby claiming all the former subjects of this empire to its sphere of influence, reaching as far as Morocco to the west, the Balkans to the north, the whole Arab peninsula to the south. The second is panturkism, extending Turkey's reach towards Central Asia by grabbing Turkic nations such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

The problems with that dream is that, 1. by and large, the former Ottoman subjects do not want to be Ottoman subjects again, they do not have nostalgia of being colonial subjects of the Turks, 2. the Central Asian countries, despite their shared ethnicity with Turkey, usually have more cultural and economic ties with closer neighbors such as Russia than with Turkey (after all, they were Soviet republics while Turkey was and still is in NATO, so they spent 70 years without any connection), and 3. Islamism has a strong component of Arab supremacism which is incompatible with Turkic supremacism, so it'll be hard to reconcile Islamism and Panturkism.
I had made few relevant points if you will refer to posts 43, 44, 52, 58, 65, 71 & 80. However you have added few informative points which must be looked into.

Aside, I have one genuine query (it might look like critical of US, Europe & NATO system and it might be true as well) that why NATO alliance generally ends up backing those who are genocidal in principle & actual action on ground, even if their intentions might be good. One time it can be ignored but repeatedly, I don't get it. I do consider western democracy & systems as better way of doing things, however I find no logical reason as to why NATO political leadership makes same mistake again & again. Political differences is fine and it can be countered but having genocide of so many people done on its watch is just what disturbs me. Your opinion?
 

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
708
678
A Place
Aside, I have one genuine query (it might look like critical of US, Europe & NATO system and it might be true as well) that why NATO alliance generally ends up backing those who are genocidal in principle & actual action on ground, even if their intentions might be good. One time it can be ignored but repeatedly, I don't get it. I do consider western democracy & systems as better way of doing things, however I find no logical reason as to why NATO political leadership makes same mistake again & again. Political differences is fine and it can be countered but having genocide of so many people done on its watch is just what disturbs me. Your opinion?
NATO is an instrument of US influence and therefore serves mostly to promote the interests of US imperialism. Many people, especially in Eastern Europe, see it as a defense against Russian imperialism, and that is true too, but it's just because they prefer to be under the imperial dominion of the distant United States than of the neighboring Russian federation.

In general, I would caution against thinking imperialist systems are good. In the end, what matters is always power. Good intentions are not drivers in foreign policy, they can at most be elements for getting public opinion to accept something, but the real motives are always a lot more cynical. That's why you get a lot of double standards, where crimes committed by a country whose support you need are played down or ignored while crimes committed by a country you are hostile to are played up or even invented.

In general I dislike NATO for these reasons, even if I am aware that if Russia or China were the global hegemon instead of America, they'd be even worse.
 

Ginvincible

Well-Known member
Dec 5, 2017
359
387
Ohio
Azerbaijan's leader says no end to fighting until Armenia sets pullout timetable
Nailia Bagirova | October 04, 2020​

BAKU/YEREVAN (Reuters) - Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev demanded on Sunday that Armenia set a timetable for withdrawing from the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Azeri territories, and said Azerbaijan would not cease military action until that happened.

In a televised address to the nation, Aliyev said Azeri forces were advancing in a week-long offensive to retake lands that they lost to ethnic Armenians in the 1990s.

“Azerbaijan has one condition, and that is the liberation of its territories,” he said. “Nagorno-Karabakh is the territory of Azerbaijan. We must return and we shall return.”

“My condition is the following: let them withdraw their troops, and the confrontation will be stopped, but this should not be in words, but in deeds,” he added.

He said the international community had failed for three decades to enforce U.N. resolutions or put pressure on Armenia to return Azeri territories.

The content and tone of Aliyev’s message made clear that Azerbaijan would not entertain calls for an immediate ceasefire, as Russia, the United States and European Union have urged.

Speaking immediately after Aliyev’s speech, Armenian Defence Ministry official Artsrun Hovhannisyan said: “I don’t think that there is any risk for Yerevan (the Armenian capital), but anyway we are in war.”

The clashes are the worst since the 1990s, when some 30,000 people were killed and are spreading beyond the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave. They have raised international concern about stability in the South Caucasus, where pipelines carry Azeri oil and gas to world markets.

The conflict threatens to drag in other regional powers as Azerbaijan is supported by Turkey, while Armenia has a defence pact with Russia.

Hundreds of people have been killed in the past week of fighting between Azerbaijan and ethnic Armenian forces, including more than 40 civilians.

Earlier on Sunday, Azerbaijan said Armenian forces had fired rockets at its second city of Ganja, killing one civilian and wounding 32, and also launched a missile attack on the Azeri industrial city of Mingachevir. Azerbaijan threatened to retaliate by destroying military targets inside Armenia.

Both Armenia’s and the breakaway region’s defence ministries said they denied the Azeri claim of the Armenian attack on Mingachevir in Azerbaijan.

Turkey’s Foreign Ministry said: “The attacks of Armenia targeting the civilians in Ganja...are a new manifestation of Armenia’s unlawful attitude. We condemn these attacks.”

Armenia denied it had directed fire “of any kind” towards Azerbaijan. The leader of Nagorno-Karabakh said his forces had targeted a military airbase in Ganja but later stopped firing in order to avoid civilian casualties.

Until now, the main fighting has been between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic Armenian enclave inside Azerbaijan, but it now threatens to spill over into a direct war with Armenia itself.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called for an immediate ceasefire in a conversation with Armenia’s foreign minister and said Moscow was ready to help seek a solution to the conflict via the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

Azerbaijan, however, says it has lost patience with the OSCE’s failure to resolve the conflict.

Nagorno-Karabakh once again came under Azeri bombardment on Sunday and an official there said the civilian death toll over the past week had risen to 18, including casualties in the enclave’s capital of Stepanakert and nearby Shushi.

Aliyev said on Twitter his forces had captured the town of Jabrail and several villages in what, if confirmed, would be a significant advance on the southern edge of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Armenian defence ministry spokeswoman Shushan Stepanyan dismissed the claim as “yet another fabrication”. Independent verification was not possible.

Nagorno-Karabakh leader Arayik Harutyunyan said his forces would target military units located in the large Azeri cities.

==========================================================
Source: Reuters
==========================================================
 

Ginvincible

Well-Known member
Dec 5, 2017
359
387
Ohio
Realistically, if no outside powers intervene in a meaningful way, Armenia is destined to lose this conflict right?

Followup, is Armenia proper truly next on the chopping block? I definitely get the sense that the Turks and Azeris want a connected border, historical statements (and genocides) by prominent Turks and Azeris show their intent. If the world doesn't do anything about this war, what's stopping an invasion and subsequent cleansing of Armenians? Maybe not walk into the desert and starve genocide, but perhaps harsh repression, encouraged Armenian emigration and flooding the lands with Turkic peoples?
 

Volcano

Senior member
Mar 11, 2018
1,580
1,353
India, Kerala
Realistically, if no outside powers intervene in a meaningful way, Armenia is destined to lose this conflict right?

Followup, is Armenia proper truly next on the chopping block? I definitely get the sense that the Turks and Azeris want a connected border, historical statements (and genocides) by prominent Turks and Azeris show their intent. If the world doesn't do anything about this war, what's stopping an invasion and subsequent cleansing of Armenians? Maybe not walk into the desert and starve genocide, but perhaps harsh repression, encouraged Armenian emigration and flooding the lands with Turkic peoples?

Russia. Armenia is a member of CSTO, in principle attack on Armanian proper is an attack on Russia. But only time will tell whether Russia will do anything about it. I assume Russia will. Considering the fact that Russia got involved in far away Syria, they have more reason to involve in its own backyard for an ex-soviet treaty partner.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Ginvincible

Ginvincible

Well-Known member
Dec 5, 2017
359
387
Ohio
Russia. Armenia is a member of CSTO, in principle attack on Armanian proper is an attack on Russia. But only time will tell whether Russia will do anything about it. I assume Russia will. Considering the fact that Russia got involved in far away Syria, they have more reason to involve in its own backyard for an ex-soviet treaty partner.



I know about CSTO... but Russia (like all great powers) does whatever it wants, whenever it wants. After a certain point, obligations and promises become optional it seems.

I think Russia's intervention in Syria is not a good comparison. Russia intervened to fight ISIS, an international terror group. Armenia is fighting Turkey and Azerbaijan, two actual nations with significant capabilities. The potential for major losses is immense for Russia... granted if they don't intervene and Armenia collapses, it will only embolden Turkey further and will be a nuisance for Russia down the road.
 

Volcano

Senior member
Mar 11, 2018
1,580
1,353
India, Kerala
I know about CSTO... but Russia (like all great powers) does whatever it wants, whenever it wants. After a certain point, obligations and promises become optional it seems.

I think Russia's intervention in Syria is not a good comparison. Russia intervened to fight ISIS, an international terror group. Armenia is fighting Turkey and Azerbaijan, two actual nations with significant capabilities. The potential for major losses is immense for Russia... granted if they don't intervene and Armenia collapses, it will only embolden Turkey further and will be a nuisance for Russia down the road.

If armania collapse, Turkey will reach oil rich Caspian sea. There is no way Russia will allow that. Historically turkey was a bigger issue for Russia for most of modern time. Russia managed to wrestle back influence in Caucasus only after collapse of ottoman empire. On the other hand, bombing Norther Azarbaijan will also allow Russia to cut off the Azarbaijan oil pipeline to Georgia and then to Europe. It's a strategic pipeline Russia want to cutoff for a long time, which will strengthen Russian grip over Europe. Russian troops from South Ossetia did seized few km of Baku Supsa pipeline in Georgia few years back. It is much easier to cut off the pipeline from armania, since pipeline bis just few Kms from Armanian border.

35301230_2071008502941553_8043777754547617792_n.jpg


Russia joined Syrian war not to fight ISIS. Just look at the number of bombs it dropped on American allied militants ( so called FSA) and compare it to ISIS. Bulk of the strikes was on Non ISIS militants.

But yes, at the end of the day, we can't say for sure what Russia is going to do. If they want to keep Turkey down, then they have a really good reason to stop them on Armenia
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ginvincible

Volcano

Senior member
Mar 11, 2018
1,580
1,353
India, Kerala
Azerbaijan military forces getting destroyed trying bro enter jabrail

Azarbaijan forces fleeing Jabrail following a failed attack, destroyed Oil depot

 

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
550
428
Delhi
Azerbaijan already accomplished much of its objective:
But it hasn't captured any land. I don't think that Azerbaijan even planned for this invasion. The way they have lost men seems that they were manipulated by the Turks to invade and take nagorno karabakh. Without the drones the performance of the Azeris have been lacking whether it is to infantry or armoured. The armenians have been able to hold them without much out side help.